Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Science & Technology
The truth about the so-called Global Warming
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Phoenix" data-source="post: 39176" data-attributes="member: 10"><p><strong>Re: The truth about the so-called Global Warming</strong></p><p></p><p>I would like to, on an abstract level, address some of the red flags that have kept me from examining your proposal in much detail. I will be examining the finer points though and giving comments on those later.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p style="text-align: left">1. I first became aware of this "no Global Warming" theory on a post involving choice vs fate. It seem to me to be a weak point in the piece. It seemed to say if you close your eyes and smile all will be ok. I replied if you keep your eyes open and smile it could be a lot of fun.</p><p></p><p> </p><p style="text-align: left">2. The sense of narration is very strong. One of the clues I look for when determining if a story is true or false on the T.V. program urban legend is; Does this story have a moral? Nearly every urban legend is told to make a point about some middle class value. What is standing out more than any statement about the sun or heat, is a villain with evil intentions. In fact what I am seeing is a concern with motives (plot details) then a concern with mechanics (science details).</p><p></p><p> </p><p style="text-align: left">3. The outcome in convenient. What easier way to deal with "An inconvenient truth" than to call it a lie. The basic reaction of any paradigm is to treat all threats against it as lies, evil or insane. This forms a major crux I have with "sceptics", "rationalists", "materialists", and general debunkers; they really aren't being scientific, they rationalize under the cloak of science. I don't particularly put much stock in this point of my argument. For it is a case of arguing by motive. But for those who are persuaded by such arguments. There you have it, "Your case is wrong because you stand to benefit." (That statement is not logical, rational, or scientific.) </p><p></p><p> </p><p style="text-align: left">4. Hobbes' skepticism: There is no proof that any statement about our physical environment has to be the way it is. The gravitational constant, attraction and repulsion of electro-magnetic fields, the sky being blue, the grass being green; there is no proof that these things have to be. There could well be universes where these things are different. So the theory of the Sun causing the observed effects of global warming, on a fundamental level, can never be rigoroursly proved. Thus we must fundamentally treat it only as a possible explanation and not something that can be answered with a yes or no. No evidence will provide that 100% confidence.</p><p></p><p style="text-align: left">In the end, I do not believe either of us will pursuade the other. I do this only to perhaps establish some repore of being willing to engage in debate with you. You seem like a likable and knowledgable person, who is willing to explore ideas off the beaten path. I have respect for such people.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Phoenix, post: 39176, member: 10"] [b]Re: The truth about the so-called Global Warming[/b] I would like to, on an abstract level, address some of the red flags that have kept me from examining your proposal in much detail. I will be examining the finer points though and giving comments on those later. [LEFT]1. I first became aware of this "no Global Warming" theory on a post involving choice vs fate. It seem to me to be a weak point in the piece. It seemed to say if you close your eyes and smile all will be ok. I replied if you keep your eyes open and smile it could be a lot of fun.[/LEFT] [LEFT]2. The sense of narration is very strong. One of the clues I look for when determining if a story is true or false on the T.V. program urban legend is; Does this story have a moral? Nearly every urban legend is told to make a point about some middle class value. What is standing out more than any statement about the sun or heat, is a villain with evil intentions. In fact what I am seeing is a concern with motives (plot details) then a concern with mechanics (science details).[/LEFT] [LEFT]3. The outcome in convenient. What easier way to deal with "An inconvenient truth" than to call it a lie. The basic reaction of any paradigm is to treat all threats against it as lies, evil or insane. This forms a major crux I have with "sceptics", "rationalists", "materialists", and general debunkers; they really aren't being scientific, they rationalize under the cloak of science. I don't particularly put much stock in this point of my argument. For it is a case of arguing by motive. But for those who are persuaded by such arguments. There you have it, "Your case is wrong because you stand to benefit." (That statement is not logical, rational, or scientific.) [/LEFT] [LEFT]4. Hobbes' skepticism: There is no proof that any statement about our physical environment has to be the way it is. The gravitational constant, attraction and repulsion of electro-magnetic fields, the sky being blue, the grass being green; there is no proof that these things have to be. There could well be universes where these things are different. So the theory of the Sun causing the observed effects of global warming, on a fundamental level, can never be rigoroursly proved. Thus we must fundamentally treat it only as a possible explanation and not something that can be answered with a yes or no. No evidence will provide that 100% confidence.[/LEFT] [LEFT]In the end, I do not believe either of us will pursuade the other. I do this only to perhaps establish some repore of being willing to engage in debate with you. You seem like a likable and knowledgable person, who is willing to explore ideas off the beaten path. I have respect for such people.[/LEFT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Science & Technology
The truth about the so-called Global Warming
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top